I own a Nikon P510 camera and i am thinking of upgrading to a DSLR. How does a DSLR help me to get better pictures than a good point-and-shoot camera? I am not an expert in photography yet, but i have acquired a general idea of the basics of photography. Is it okay for me to invest in a good DSLR if i use it occasionally?
DSLRs are stupid cheep, dude. I paid $1800 for a used Nikon F5 in 2002. Y'all get off so easy these days. Look at it this way: a camera is nothing more than a box with a hole in it. You can control how long that hole stays open, how big it is, and what's in front of it. That's it. When you aren't using an SLR, you're giving up control over the first two of those three parameters. Your P510 gives you a lot more control than an iPhone but whenever I see "43x zoom" I know I'm looking at shitty glass. Nice thing about an SLR? You can trade in your shitty glass. Tell you what: buy this book. Look it over and see how many of the techniques within it can be accomplished with your P510. Do those. Then when you've beaten your camera into the ground, get a better one. I shot a Nikon N70 for two years until the shit it couldn't do was boning me. Then I moved up to the F5 until I found its limits. Then I shot a Pentax 6x7 until the whole fucking world forgot how to develop slide film and I had to stop taking pictures for like five years. Then I bought a Canon 5D for craptacular amounts of money and it's been serving me well for like 10 years 'cuz I got good glass. Eventually I'll upgrade to something better but "something better" is now like $10k rather than $2k so I'm not in a hurry. If what you got isn't holding you back yet, there's no reason to upgrade. There is, however, ample reason to push past your limits.
The worst thing about the early DSLRs was they were all APS sensors. I had the D70 for the longest time because I refused to "upgrade" to another APS sensor body, and I had invested stupid amounts of money in nikkor lenses (most of which were full frame). They then released the D600 a couple of years ago which was still expensive, but for a full frame camera, $2000 was cheap ... if I ever find the limits of that camera, I'll be super suprised. Once you're paying decent money for camera gear, the lenses become more important. My favourites are my 50mm 1:1.8, a 24mm 1:1.4 and my 80-200mm f.28, all nikkor. That 24mm is ridiculous in low light.
Yeah, I went Canon for the simple fact that Canon had released three full-frame DSLRs while Nikon had yet to release a single one. Now? now I'm thinking of going Nikon again. I would argue that the worst thing about the early DSLRs were that they were crazy f'n expensive. Pepperidge Farm remembers.
In 1995, the DCS 460 was the highest resolution digital camera available and its list price was US$ 35,600. When it closed out in November 2000, the price had dropped to US$ 2,500.
Hahaha yeah I didn't get into it quite that early: Was a good camera but the battery life was awful. And the body had standard camera batteries for the "camera" part, provided by Nikon, while the digital sensor and other electronics were powered by rechargeable AA's.
If you're asking, you probably don't need one right now. If you're going to use it the way you would a point-and-shoot camera a DLSR won't give you better results and might be a little worse because point-and-shoot digital cameras usually bend over backwards to salvage any shot you take. If you want to play with more interesting techniques, then a DLSR will offer you more flexibility to do that. Wait until you know of pictures you want to take which you can't take with your current camera.
No. The best camera is the one you have. So many people fall into the trap of buying a DSLR thinking they will improve their photos if only they had a better camera. I know this, because I've been buying DSLRs for over a decade and I'm the biggest sucker out there for shiny new camera gear. Yes, I took some great photos with my kit, and like all toys I loved them, but at the end of the day, my $2000 camera and $10000 worth of lenses really don't get used that much, while the crappy camera in my phone gets used every day. Really the only thing that matters in a camera is that it has a reasonably flexible lens, and the sensor is good. That Nikon you have, has a good sensor - 16 megapixels and will go down to ISO100. The lens is not bad either with an f3.3-5.9, meaning that at fully wide, it is reasonably fast in low light. What else do you need? Better battery life? more choice in lenses? having a long lens is fun, but I can tell you that while the $2000 80-200 F2.8 Nikkor is a fucking beast of a lens, and worth every penny to someone, it didn't make me a better photographer. My girlfriend loved how well she looked through it though. Look, if you have a chunk of cash burning a hole in your pocket, and you really really want to spend it on a camera, then a DSLR could be a nice toy to have. But don't fall into the idea that you can't take great, if not fantastic, photos with what you have. Your camera is not holding you back. I've had 4 DSLRs and several expensive film cameras over the years. I've spent probably $10,000 on camera gear and lenses over that time. It didn't turn me into Ansel Adams. I took some nice pics with the kit. But I kinda wish I had the $10,000 now.
As others have said, you only need to upgrade once you become frustrated with the limitations of your current camera. It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that a 'better camera' will make you a 'better photographer,' but it's much more important to learn the theory of photography and you may be surprised what you can make your point and shoot once you take it out of auto mode. Having said that, it;s probably much easier to get your head around photographic theory with a larger camera, because they are designed for the creative controls to be within easy reach. To specifically answer your question, a DSLR camera has a larger sensor than your specific point-and-shoot, and that brings many advantages with it.
Different lenses, mainly. Probably a larger sensor than what you have now. Maybe some better low light performance. Maybe a lower aperture setting because of the lense, like 2.8 or 1.8, etc. The DSLR bodies are also just a little bigger, and consider the knobs, wheels, and buttons, as just part of a tool. They give you easier access to change settings on the fly to suit the situation. It's like a $1000 miter saw versus a $200 one. They'll both cut wood, but one's gonna have more features, maybe make it easier, smoother cuts, etc. That being said, Matjam already said what I would say, kind of. "The best camera is the one you have with you." My cell phone is the best camera I have because it's always with me. When I travel, I bring my Nikon P7000 point and shoot. I used to shoot weddings professionally, so I have a D700, a D300, a D80, and SB 900/600 strobes, and tons of 2.8 zoom glass. But it's heavy, and burdensome, so it's not portable to take out to parks with my wife and daughter, or on trips. So my point and shoot and phone become better options. I'll bring my D80 with a 50mm prime with us quite a bit, but even then I'd rather just leave it at home most of the time. But if you do love photography, and do want to get more into it, the capabilities of a DSLR is a good investment and you'd love it. As a guy with lots of camera bodies, I won't talk you out of it. If you have the money, go for it. But it's nice to keep a little point and shoot around too. A DSLR won't naturally take "better" pictures, it will just give you a better tool to do what you are already doing. It's better to have non-DSLR pictures than no pictures at all. :)How does a DSLR help me to get better pictures than a good point-and-shoot camera?
Thanks people. I guess I'll stay with my P510.
Crap, looks like I'm a bit late to this party. Still, I'd like to mention that... If you really want to do something for your photography, start working with lighting. Find out what you can do with natural light. Learn how highlights and shadows bring pictures to life. Get a few reflectors (they are cheap). Experiment with them. Eventually, you may want to add a strobe or two to the mix. Use different materials to soften or shape their light. Once you're comfortable with your lighting, maybe in a year or so, and you still are into photography, a used DSLR might actually be worth it. Anything past 2010 or so will do nicely, but a Semi-pro is preferable for build quality and ease of (manual) use. Body doesn't matter nearly as much as glass does. Don't believe any reviews implying otherwise. If money isn't an issue, look into EVIL systems. Those can do a lot to reduce the "camera is great but also at home" factor. Personally, I used to carry my DSLR around everywhere, along with a few lenses. A little insanity may help with this approach.
You can use the site however you want, but normally, commenting on old things (years old even) is considered perfectly normal around here. 3 hours is a newborn measured in Hubski time.Crap, looks like I'm a bit late to this party. Still, I'd like to mention that...
I'd stick with it until you can identify exactly what about it limits you. Base your next camera purchase on that. I went with a Finepix HS20EXR after using a PowerShot s60 for 5 years because zoom and controls were limiting me more than lowlight performance. Saved me a bunch of money too.